The Norwegian-French judge Eva Joly is famous for her fraud investigation skills and has been hired by Iceland to advise its bank crash investigators and help solve the mysteries surrounding the country’s economic downfall.
On Saturday she took a sidestep from her official role by writing an opinion piece for several major European newspapers lambasting Europe’s treatment of Iceland over recent months.
Joly has often proven herself unafraid to criticise the Icelandic government and figures within the judiciary and investigation committee. It is, after all, her job to criticise and affect change for the benefit of everyone (except the guilty).
In this instance the common good leads Joly to believe that Europe is approaching Iceland unfairly – especially the Netherlands and the UK.
By forcing Iceland to pay enormous compensation for the Icesave debacle, the countries are helping to reduce Iceland to poverty, increase migration and increase the likelihood that the country will fail, default and never pay back its debts. She also believes they are failing to take responsibility for their own mistakes in the fiasco.
Under EU regulations, Landsbanki was entitled to set up its Icesave branches in the Netherlands and the UK and the respective governments could do nothing to stop them. It is also true that branches (as opposed to subsidiaries) remain under the supervision of authorities in their home country and not in the host country.
Joly’s point hinges on the part of the EU rule that states the host country should ensure that the branch is being regulated in its home country to the same high standards as the host country’s own banks.
According to Joly, had the UK and Dutch authorities stuck to this rule diligently, the Icelandic financial authorities would have had to regulate Landsbanki and Icesave much better, possibly avoiding the collapse altogether.
“Could anyone realistically think that a handful of people in Reykjavik could effectively control the activities of a bank in the heart of The City?” Joly writes in the Telegraph. “European directives concerning financial conglomerates suggest that EU member states allowing foreign banking subsidiaries into their territories must ensure they are subject to the same control abroad as they would be domestically.
“So, was there a failure on the part of the British authorities on this point, which would not be particularly surprising considering the “performance” of other English (sic) banks during the financial crisis? If so, Mr Brown’s activism in relation to Iceland might be motivated by a wish to appear powerful in the eyes of his electorate.
“Of course, the Icelandic institutions have much responsibility. But does that necessarily mean that the responsibility of the British authorities should be overlooked, dumping it all on the Icelandic people alone?”
Highlights of the original article can be seen here, and a longer, more detailed version of the same here.
perhaps she wanted to say “A Torshavn bank is the one and only financial stuff which should take control over Reykjavik.”
lmao
One thing that interested me was Eva saying in the non-English versions:
Ignoring that she’s appearing pretty partisan with regards to the terrorist label, she’s repeating the old story that the ATCSA was applied to not just Landsbanki but also Kaupthing.
Is this a bad case of should have checked her facts first, or does she know something that hasn’t hit the press? Bearing in mind that I find it highly unlikely that something hasn’t been reported.
Finally someone is talking sense mr brown i dont use capitals cos he is gone soon , dont have any respect for this gov, bring back Maggie
The original article in The Telegraph is actually pretty well-argued. And, as usual with Eva Joly, most of it seems to make sense.
Bromley – just a question, but do you know what happend with Kauphting in Norway?
The Telegraph’s version online is considerably shortened – Joly’s full article is here (and well worth reading): http://eyjan.is/silfuregils/2009/08/03/greinin-eftir-joly-a-ensku/
Alex, editor
Oystein. Not really. I thought the same sort of thing as KSFUK, but after the collapse of K.hf rather than before.
C: Tell me if you get this. Very important!!
“Of course, the Icelandic institutions have much responsibility. But does that necessarily mean that the responsibility of the British authorities should be overlooked, dumping it all on the Icelandic people alone?”
Who is dumping it all to the Icelandic people alone? The f*king local government!! Not the UK or the Netherlands
” By forcing Iceland to pay enormous compensation for the Icesave debacle, the countries are helping to reduce Iceland to poverty, increase migration and increase the likelihood that the country will fail, default and never pay back its debts. She also believes they are failing to take responsibility for their own mistakes in the fiasco.”
When a dog barks loud and shows its strength, if it turns out that is all for show then he deserves what ever pain it receives, and the person given it to him dont have any fault but for sure it’s going to inflict as much pain as possible to make sure the dog does not front ever again.
That’s the treatment the country is getting therefore our government now has to bite its tail.
The sad story is that the baby’s of the dog even though they have no fault, end up paying the price harder and for longer as after such a hard beat the ” BIG ” dog cant provide as well anymore.
Who’s there to blame?
If this is how the E.U. opens its doors to a possible new member, so far I don’t consider this a warm welcome. Personally (!), I’ve always been rather optimistic about Iceland joining the “european club”, but there are too many unexpected reactions coming from the EU, changing the way I feel about it. Iceland will think twice when deciding about cohesion…
“bring back Maggie”
LOL. I haven’t heard that in a few years… It must be desperate times here in UK if we’re reminiscing about a woman who introduced the poll tax and caused riots!
Bromley86. Yes, but authorities followed the banks closeley, and I think they were quite aware of what system it was build on…
NRK – Norwegian public state television – had a story on Iceland banks in November 2008.
It is Jon Gerald Sullenberger that is guide in the beginning… (We know he is not the best friend of Jon Asgeir Johannesson).
Some part of the program is in English – some is in Norwegian.
http://www1.nrk.no/nett-tv/indeks/151914
You can try and see if you get something out of it.
Bromley86 said:
One thing that interested me was Eva saying in the non-English versions:
“Thus already in October 2008 the British government employed extremely drastic measures by freezing deposits, using anti-terrorism legislation (The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), not only against Landsbanki but also against Kaupthing.”
Ignoring that she’s appearing pretty partisan with regards to the terrorist label, she’s repeating the old story that the ATCSA was applied to not just Landsbanki but also Kaupthing.
Is this a bad case of should have checked her facts first, or does she know something that hasn’t hit the press? Bearing in mind that I find it highly unlikely that something hasn’t been reported.
——————————————————–
This is a direct translation of what she spoke which is different to the interpretation of what she said as reflected in what you quoted in your post above
Eva Joly
“Indeed, at the very start of October, the UK began with a measure of extreme retaliation: freezing of the assets of not only Landsbanki but also Kaupthing Bank, which was totally unconnected to Icesave, using its anti-terrorism legislation”
Assets were frozen in both banks, the Anti terrorism legislation was used.
You could make a case that she implied the ATA was used against Kaupthing.
But It is a moot point whether assets were frozen in Kaupthing with using the ATA or a Banking Law. It is taking pedantry way too serious in the context of the substance of her article. It is the substance of the deal which seriously interests most people in Iceland, not whether Eva crossed her T’s.
Thanks Oystein.
Although I couldn’t follow what was said or exactly what his position is (regulatory/police?), Helgi Magnus Gunnarsson looked totally demoralised.
Also spotted Bjarni from Iceland Review :) .
I agree with you Aggi..
Todd DiRoberto
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/todd-diroberto.asp?cycle=08
If traders had just watch what was happening using something like this http://thetradesurfer.com/blog/simple-moving-average maybe losses could have been avoided?? Thoughts?
If you wonder why U.K. is using using anti-terrorism legislation to humble Iceland the answer is quite simple:
The U.K. (and NATO) are engaged into a war to take over Artic (where Iceland has a legitimate share):
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14587820
Getting into Debt is just not worth the risk! If you earn the money to buy what you need, there is no reason to get into debt for anything! Why Countries should get into debt is ludacrous! You reap what you sow!
Of course, that theory is shot down by (a) reality and (b) Iceland’s lack of a claim to the Arctic. Don’t believe everything you think of when reading the Economist or not wearing your tin-foil hat.